Professional organizations have a lot of other, unintended negative consequences that make me want to stay the heck away from them. Also, nobody guarantees that the professional organizations themselves would be ethical. The AMA lobbies for things that I consider unethical, as a way to keep their leverage. The American Psychological Association was fine and happy with torture. I've seen an architects association let a member amend their copy of signed documents (which I got to court for, and won, because the editing ended up overlapping a little over my signature, and my own copy didn't have the last clause)
Collective action like this demands doing a lot of work to make it difficult to get a job without being a member, and then works on limiting the influx of members: For instance, you'll find that the attempts of a professional developer association in Spain advertises how it'll increase the value of your college degree, and protect you from having to compete with intruders, like those with physics degrees, or that learned programming from an accelerator, or on their own. And professional organizations have to do this kind of thing, because otherwise they lack the power to get anything done.
So no matter how much I personally dislike mass surveillance, I'd not be caught dead supporting the creation of a professional organization. Instead of using force, how about growing the utility of our work so much, everyone knows they can change jobs the next day to a place that doesn't do mass surveillance? If enough great jobs exist, the awful can't retain talent. That's why developers in the US have far better working conditions like in my native Spain, where finding another job is not something you can do in a week.